And to be at least somewhat fair to the writers, Bagwell did get 56% of the vote last time, so it's pretty obvious that there are plenty of anti-steroid voters who are voting for him. I find it unlikely that any of the first timers with the PED cloud on them will do that well this year, and a few of them have way better resumes than Bagwell.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/3/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):Al, the last sentence of your first paragraph summed up my point perfectly. His career trajectory would have looked like a player who hit his peak in his mid 20's and then saw his performance drop off quickly in his mid 30's. That's not really evidence of usage. I know you aren't arguing against him, I'm just expressing my shock that Bagwell wouldn't be elected by people in this forum.

My opinion is that his career numbers fall just short of HOF caliber.

And FWIW, I was a big fan of his. I saw a number of his games when he played in AA New Britain in 1990, thought he was one of the best hitters I had seen come through the Eastern League in that timeframe. I just don't think he's a HOFer.

Joining in the Edgar Martinez/Bernie Williams debate - they aren't the same hitters. Edgar is one of the best pure hitters I've ever seen. OPS of almost 1.000 over a 10-year span (92-01) with an OPS+ of 159. Edgar Martinez was a feared hitter, Bernie was not.

I do understand the opinion of "Bernie played CF, Edgar was a DH." But they're not comparable hitters.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/3/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):He's pretty clearly one of the top 100 offensive players of all time and your argument against his hall of fame inclusion is that he only won the fan popularity contest four times?

It's not all "fan" voting, there are other ways to make the team. Shouldn't a HOFer be considered one of the elites at his position when he played the game, for a significant amount of time? There were a lot of excellent 1B playing then.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/3/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):He's pretty clearly one of the top 100 offensive players of all time and your argument against his hall of fame inclusion is that he only won the fan popularity contest four times?

My argument against his Hall of Fame inclusion is that, while he was a very good player, he was not HOF caliber. I already stated that.

But you do realize that the All-Star manager selects all the non-starters, right? Far more often than not, they did not select him as one of the top 15 or so position players in the NL either.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/3/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):He's pretty clearly one of the top 100 offensive players of all time and your argument against his hall of fame inclusion is that he only won the fan popularity contest four times?

It's not all "fan" voting, there are other ways to make the team. Shouldn't a HOFer be considered one of the elites at his position when he played the game, for a significant amount of time? There were a lot of excellent 1B playing then.

That said, I agree he should be in.

Well, I can see at least a couple years where it was clear that he got bumped because at least one of the reserve 1B was a "gotta have one from every team pick." The other problem with AS picks is that they are largely based on the merits of your first 2 months of a season. Bagwell was 7th in the MVP voting in back to back years when he wasn't an all-star.